10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[tomclarke]

This is one of the better hypotheses explaining cold fusion that I have seen. It also predicts that Chromium could be used, providing a fairly simple way of confirming the theory.

Theoretical Feasibility of Cold Fusion According to the BSM - Supergravitation Unified Theory
http://vixra.org/pdf/1112.0043v2.pdf

Parallel,

This hypothesis is nuts. Why do you think it is not publishable?

The main scattering experiments are two types: scattering of positrons from a positive atomic nucleus (or the proton in case of hydrogen), known as Bhabha scattering, or Rutherford scattering of alpha particles from a thin foil of gold. However, the scattering experiments have only angular, and not transverse, resolution. Then if the nucleus is assumed to be non-spherical, such as a torus, a twisted torus, or a folded torus with much larger toroidal radius but thinner, the scattering data by positrons will be one and the same. Also, the positrons as well as the electrons are found to have rotational speed, so the momentum of this will affect the interpretation of the scattering data. In the Rutherforth scattering experiment, if the Helium nucleus is not spherical, the data will be influenced by a channeling effect that also will contributing to a smaller angular dispersion.

So protons, neutrons, and all nuclei are supposed to have a very assymetric shape, rather than being roughly spherical.

This is completely incompatible with standard model, our idea of weak interactions having very small range, the whole of current nuclear physics.

It is incompatible with the very detailed scattering experiments from protons which would give different scattering if protons were not spherical.

This non-standard theory has no supporting evidence, is incompatible with observations, and completely rewrites all of physics.

You have to be brain-dead to think this is a good explanation of anything. You have to be as arrogant as Rossi (who this guy clearly feels is a kindred spirit) to rubbish so much detailed physics which has proved precisely to explain experiments, on no evidence.

Now, if this guy proposed non-spherical protons and looked in detail at scattering data to see whether it is compatible with his geometry as well as with spherical protons I would have some sympathy. He does not even do this first, most basic, sanity check.

Best wishes, Tom

[parallel]

tomclarke,
I wasn't claiming this theory was necessarily correct, but that it did provide an explanation for several things where the standard model fails.

You can't explain the the problems with the standard model but apparently are not prepared to look at any alternative that, for all its faults, does.

This is only what I would expect from a believer in the IPCC's version of AGW. (See Catastrophe Denied http://www.climate-skeptic.com/)
Your absolute unquestioning religious faith in the consensus view is mind boggling.

[tomclarke]

tomclarke,
I wasn't claiming this theory was necessarily correct, but that it did provide an explanation for several things where the standard model fails.

You can't explain the the problems with the standard model but apparently are not prepared to look at any alternative that, for all its faults, does.

This is only what I would expect from a believer in the IPCC's version of AGW. (See Catastrophe Denied http://www.climate-skeptic.com/)
Your absolute unquestioning religious faith in the consensus view is mind boggling.

Parallel, I know of no problem with standard model that it corrects. More importantly, what about the thousands of phenomena correctly predicted by standard model on which this model fails?

Common sense needed here.

[parallel]

I know of no problem with standard model that it corrects. More importantly, what about the thousands of phenomena correctly predicted by standard model on which this model fails?

Really?
You should try reading the paper then. A number of things are specifically mentioned.

[tomclarke]

I know of no problem with standard model that it corrects. More importantly, what about the thousands of phenomena correctly predicted by standard model on which this model fails?

Really?
You should try reading the paper then. A number of things are specifically mentioned.

Paralle, I like way out things - cos I read ths forum. So I can hope that both Polywell & Lerner FF will work.

I can wonder whether ME works if it is an effect which appears to have no obvious experimental consequences that would have been found.

But I'm not stupid: weird rewrites of the whole of physics as we know it just don't work. If they are even vaguely plausible they get written up & properly debated. This one is not even vaguely plausible, because it has experimental consequences right through physics.

How many Petabytes of data has come from the LHC - all interpreted using standard model? If this stuff was true all those statistics would be subtlely (or in some cases greatly) different.

[parallel]

tomclarke,

You apparently think the standard model explains everything. It doesn't. When I say it doesn't explain, I mean that some of things cannot be explained without changing the standard model. So in some ways the standard model must be wrong.

Now I know you think that is impossible, so I suppose the above passes swiftly through your mind without slowing down. Revolutionary changes in physics are not accepted overnight. I'm not suggesting this is it, but unlike you, I find looking at the problem in different ways helps. I don't immediately dismiss such hypotheses with insults as you do.

Ironically, spelling your name with an e at the end means there is a fair chance we are distantly related Oh the horror!

ps. I noted that you failed to fault Catastrophe Denied at http://www.climate-skeptic.com/ even though the conclusion is diametrically opposite to yours.

[tomclarke]

tomclarke,

You apparently think the standard model explains everything. It doesn't. When I say it doesn't explain, I mean that some of things cannot be explained without changing the standard model. So in some ways the standard model must be wrong.

Now I know you think that is impossible, so I suppose the above passes swiftly through your mind without slowing down. Revolutionary changes in physics are not accepted overnight. I'm not suggesting this is it, but unlike you, I find looking at the problem in different ways helps. I don't immediately dismiss such hypotheses with insults as you do.

Ironically, spelling your name with an e at the end means there is a fair chance we are distantly related Oh the horror!

ps. I noted that you failed to fault Catastrophe Denied at http://www.climate-skeptic.com/ even though the conclusion is diametrically opposite to yours.

parallel - I think you just don't appreciate how much the standard model does explain! I have never said or implied that it explains everything. Just that it explains much more than incompatible competing theories (like the one you champion above).

When one theory explains 99% of observations, and another explains 0.1%, which do you choose?

More importantly, the standard model is not incompatible with any observations (though there are some rarefied issues which require additional machinery to explain, so standard model on its own is incompatible). You no doubt see the standard model as fixed. But it is not, you can add stuff at the edges, and precisely which stuff needs adding is one of the things the LHC hopes to uncover. Whereas your theory is directly incompatible with many experiments. You can't tweak it into compatibility by adding stuff at edges because its core (that hadrons and nuclei have a very large eccentricity) is fundamentally incompatible with a lot of other physics.

I'm not responding to your AGW hints here because they are OT for this thread. Further, it is unhelpful to conflate theoretical physics and climate modelling - there really is no overlap.

[JoeP]

From the paper:

However, the scattering experiments have only angular, and not transverse, resolution. Then if the nucleus is assumed to be non-spherical, such as a torus, a twisted torus, or a folded torus with much larger toroidal radius but thinner, the scattering data by positrons will be one and the same.

What does Sargoytchev mean by scattering experiments having only angular and not traverse resolution?

Now I assume a spherical shape for nuclei is optimal to reduce the distance between protons and neutrons thus maximizing the influence of the short range nuclear force.

[parallel]

ee-tom

parallel - I think you just don't appreciate how much the standard model does explain! I have never said or implied that it explains everything. Just that it explains much more than incompatible competing theories (like the one you champion above).

When one theory explains 99% of observations, and another explains 0.1%, which do you choose?

I'm not championing it. Why do you say it only supports 0.1% of observations? For most things, it comes up with the same answers as the standard model. It just takes it to a finer level where that is required and explains some things the standard model can't.

Re AGW, it is just another example of how you have to support the consensus even though IPCC is clearly shown to be wrong in the video. No surpirse that you will not look at data that runs contrary to your beliefs.

[tomclarke]

ee-tom

parallel - I think you just don't appreciate how much the standard model does explain! I have never said or implied that it explains everything. Just that it explains much more than incompatible competing theories (like the one you champion above).

When one theory explains 99% of observations, and another explains 0.1%, which do you choose?

I'm not championing it. Why do you say it only supports 0.1% of observations? For most things, it comes up with the same answers as the standard model. It just takes it to a finer level where that is required and explains some things the standard model can't.

Inasfar it it is different from standard model it fails.
it is more complex than standard model

both are no-nos.

[parallel]

The standard model cannot explain LENR. This theory does.
It may be necessary to be a tad more complicated to do that.

You are clearly wrong is stating that it only supports 0.1% of observations. Your bias is showing.

[tomclarke]

The standard model cannot explain LENR. This theory does.
It may be necessary to be a tad more complicated to do that.

You are clearly wrong is stating that it only supports 0.1% of observations. Your bias is showing.

If you believe there is any hard evidence for LENR as distinct from chemical reactions + experimental error then your bias is showing.

[Carl White]

If you believe there is any hard evidence for LENR as distinct from chemical reactions + experimental error then your bias is showing.

At this point in time, this statement amounts to trolling.

Really, if you don't want to go out and look at the work that's been done, that's your business. But I wish you'd stop posting statements here that amount to covering your ears and singing "lalala lenr is a crock lalala".

[D Tibbets]

If you believe there is any hard evidence for LENR as distinct from chemical reactions + experimental error then your bias is showing.

At this point in time, this statement amounts to trolling.

Really, if you don't want to go out and look at the work that's been done, that's your business. But I wish you'd stop posting statements here that amount to covering your ears and singing "lalala lenr is a crock lalala".

I will add my 'Trolling'. You argue a negative. Where is Your Evidence for LENR? Lots of hints, lots of poorly controlled experiments, etc., etc. etc.

As far as presumptive LENR not being within the realm of the Standard Model. I don't know if that is true. Bussard had a possible explanation that I think did not violate the Standard Model. Besides, arguing that LENR is true, thus... is a flawed argument. It is like saying that if aliens visited Earth, then Mayan drawings shows it. An indefensible assumption does not imply a reasonable conclusion. Trying to find answers why something does happen or might happen is not unreasonable. But then turning around and using that to defend a lack of credible data is a catch 22.

Even if an explanation does not violate well accepted data, that does not mean that it is accurate or more accurate than an accepted theory. It has to make testable predictions. String theory and various brane theories still fall into this category. Even continental drift was in this category, till finally overwhelming evidence was collected. I have seen no overwhelming evidence for LENR. There are some interesting results, but I've seen no convincing evidence that this is due to fusion. Some of the difficulty is the magnitude of the effect, which makes for predicted(?) changes (like transmutations) that are very difficult to measure above the noise level. Certainly Rossi's claims would not suffer from this low S/N ratio, yet he has not presented any meaningful and verifiable results, and I'm not talking about very suspicious excess heat claims.

Since this is the Polywell Talk forum, let me add that there is no new physics claimed for the Polywell. Bussard, etel make reasoned claims that are different from some opinions, but the differences are based within the framework of accepted physics. And, irregardless of arguments about details, assumptions, dynamics, etc. it is the verifiable testing that will tell the story. I just wish the testing results were more available.

Dan Tibbets

[RobL]

As far as the lack of reproducibility and solid evidence goes; it's been a long torturous path but it does appear that reproducibility for experienced researchers is now very high. Eg watch Mike McKubre's excellent lecture:http://ecatnews.com/?p=1430
where he describes the empirical equation and understanding that they have developed for a necessary (but not sufficient) set of conditions under which excess heat will be observed with Pd-D experiments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_XN52jX ... r_embedded
they have recently run a set of 12 successive experiments on Pd-D in which they had excess energy in every single test, (and 2 out of 3 with Ni-H)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYZfgvSF ... r_embedded

It is highly unlikely that LENR is outside the standard model. Predicting physics and other emergent behaviour in condensed matter (millions or billions of atoms) is computationally beyond current capabilities - we cannot analytically predict basic strength of materials or when superconductivity will occur - and whatever energy focusing mechanism is leading to fusing of deuterium or hydrogen in Pd or Ni lattice is likely to be far more transitory and difficult to pin down than either of those relatively quiescent examples.